Re: [5gangip] Soliciting Ideas in Direction in 6G

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 13/07/2020 à 18:27, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 10:14 AM Behcet Sarikaya
> <sarikaya2012@gmail..com <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> Hi all, Please check this out:
> 
> http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526226842.pdf
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all, thanks for good comments on the above white paper. Now we
> need to identify some directions, possible one for us that most of
> the people in the list would be happy about.

Some inspiration could be obtained from the ongoing discussions about
Horizon Europe programme.

Here are my comments relayed to IETF about what could become a call for 
proposals in Cluster 4.

> 6G and foundational connectivity technologies
> 
> Expected impacts addressed: #19 (Green), #20 (Data), #21 (Industrial
> leadership and autonomy), #22 (Digital and emerging enabling
> technology sovereignty)
> 
> Objective: develop a strong supply chain for connectivity, increase
> European competitiveness and sovereignty in core Internet
> infrastructures, and to contribute to a reduction of the growing
> effect of the Internet on the global energy consumption with the aim
> of achieving a climate neutral Internet.
> 
> Current status: today European suppliers of connectivity systems are
> well placed with around 40% of global 5G market share, but with high
> competitive pressure from Asian and US players. In terms of
> technology, first 5G standards are available since end of 2017
> enabling Gigabit/s speeds and ~millisecond latencies. Trusted
> industrial services based on 5G technology are at very early stage.
> 
> Achievements sought / targets:


> •	Reinforce European leadership in connectivity, devices and service
> infrastructure, with European capabilities in shaping future
> connectivity (6G) standards, keeping a strong position in the network
> supply market and seizing opportunities ofintegration with new value
> chains such as cloud and edge computing as well as components and
> devices beyond smartphones. The target is EU industry holding at
> least 40% of the global market of future connectivity (6G) systems
> •	Enable a massive digital and green transitions towards low carbon
> footprint of conventional (vertical) industries such as automated
> factories, connected cars, energy grids, agriculture, smart
> healthcare by managing the exponential increase of connected devices
> and objects (speed, latency, energy, intelligence). The target is to
> contribute to vertical sectors keeping a carbon emission levels of
> 2015 (Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) objectives).
> •	Enable networks to deliver advanced real-time sub-millisecond
> latency applications that are competitive, secure and

Sub-millisecond would be about above-Gbit/s bandwidths.

To that, I would add that volume is important as well.  Many sources of 
6G ambitions talk in terms of volume of data transmitted.  That volume 
is probably more important than mere bandwidth.

> privacy-preserving, in areas such as autonomous driving,
> manufacturing and farming.

There should be carefulness about this.

In the same line of thought I also saw mentioned 'remote surgery' for 
future 5G and for 6G.

But remote surgery was already mentioned many years ago.  I remember 
VDSL was one such context.  I have also seen and played with some 
dentist surgeon's devices that could be used for training, and could 
communicate on the Internet.

However, it does not materialize.  Remote surgery is not something to 
put into someone's smartphone.  Or maybe we dont really understant surgery.

The same applies to manufacturing, farming and to a certain context to 
autonomous driving.

For example, 5G is claimed to offer so perfect network communication 
that one tele-operate a self driving car on 5G.  But the initial trials 
of tele-operation encounter so many other problems than the network 
communication system that it might be that 5G is outdated when all these 
other problems are solved.

Manufacturing: it is typically factory floors.  It's very east to bring 
reliable Ethernet and fiber there.  Why would one put a glitchy 
smartphone-specific 6G in there?  Do we really understand what 
manufacturing and Industry 4.0 needs?  (Industry 6.0 maybe).

> The target is > 10 million connected
> objects/km² for Smart City scenarios
> •	Enable trusted and energy-efficient network infrastructures

Yes, I fully agree with the energy-efficiency aspect.

This is a matter of responsibility and Ethics.

I heard people complaining about jet planes polluting the Earth and then 
the manufacturers of said jets complained about energy-hunger 
underground data centers that would not exist if there were no 
smartphones.  All these complaints are valid.

> delivering critical services as well as a dynamic multi-vendor supply
> market through new radio technologies, new architectures and open
> network and service paradigms such as Terahertz communications,
> versatile spectrum technologies, zero touch network automation, AI,

In the zerotouch network automation there is also this Let's Encrypt and 
ACME which constitute a significant step towards better security in the 
Internet.

> blockchain and EMF aware networks. An average decrease of network

I suspect EMF aware networks (EMF: Electro-Magnetic Field) would reply 
to citizien's health worries about 5G, which is good.

> consumption by a factor of 10 is targeted, as well as new classes of
> applications beyond 5G capabilities and an Internet of Sense. 

Internet of Sense?  It is new.

I suggest the following target too:
- 4G and 5G networks achieve a form of use of IPv6, but there is still 
no full native IPv6 deployed in 5G networks.  GRE still runs on IPv4 and 
5G smartphones still need translation functions in order to run IPv6. 
In 6G, there should be a requirement of full native IPv6 usage.

> Means/links: An institutionalised partnership (‘Smart Networks and
> Services’) is currently proposed to enable European industrial and
> academic stakeholders to design and implement common roadmaps in
> significantly research-intensive areas. Foundational technologies,
> long term, very high risk and disruptive concepts on radio and full
> optical networks as well as new IoT real-time concepts are addressed
> outside of the proposed Smart Networks and Services partnership.

Yes, this partnership is advancing.

But there is need of more collaboration worldwide.

Alex

> The direction should be different than  NMRG (network management 
> research group) which discusses AI and machine learning aspects, and
> COINRG (computation in the network)
> 
> Also consider that improvements to IPv6 is an IETF subject and radio
> link technologies are out of scope.
> 
> But still some directions in network virtualization and/or slicing
> could be OK.
> 
> In short, we need to be a bit specific on what we want to do.
> 
> Regards, Behcet
> 
> _______________________________________________ 5gangip mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>